Actually, all of our losses except for Virginia and Maryland were by under 90 points, while 4 of our 6 wins (closer against Princeton A and Swarthmore) were by at least 145 points. While I don't have similar numbers for Maryland and G.W., based on the total points I would guess that more of their wins were closer than ours and their losses less close than ours. I guess what I'm saying is that if a committee were to look through the results from the Mid-Atlantic, as you suggest, they might well decide that just as we lost a large number of games by one or two questions, because we played so many close games, our highest possible result at Nationals might be better. And, if I were on such a committee, that's exactly the question I would be asking - I would want to take the teams that, playing their best, would be able to do the best, because the idea is to take the teams that have the best shot at doing very well. Again - since I have not seen the full results for other teams at the Mid-Atlantic sectional, these methods are what I would use but I cannot say for certain that the outcome would be the same as I suggest. I would also mention that, all things considered, I would agree that winning should be an important factor, and I honestly believe that 3 wins is enough that I do hope both your team and G.W. got consideration for their wins (and based on Samer's predictions, it would seem at the very least that we ended up lower than he predicted because of our extra losses). However, I also think that there is a horrible disconnect between a team that's capable of putting up 400 points on Princeton A and a team that goes 6-7, and while I believe our team is someplace in between, I can understand the difficulty that NAQT would have had in trying to judge how good or bad we actually are. This is not a problem unique to us, and it seems that NAQT decided to use a stats-based system because they decided it was the best way to solve the problem in as many of the cases as possible, and from what was announced, it is tweaked for wins and losses. Anyway, regardless of my opinion on the matter, what I would definitely say is this: The criteria for bids were announced ahead of time, and as a result, every team knew roughly how they needed to perform in order to qualify for Nationals. As a result, if my teammates and I are judged by those criteria to be worthy of a spot at Nationals (we currently are 4th on the wait list, so it is uncertain whether we will end up being invited), I for one would have no qualms about accepting a bid despite our poor win/loss record. I join you in wishing good luck to all those that qualified for Nationals, and hope to do better against you and your team in the future. :) Best wishes, Charles Steinhardt Princeton B
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST